paulk
12-12-2004, 01:23 AM
From week 4 discussion of the gay Nevada Constitution distance education class that I'm now done with:
Some dumbass, replying to some other dumbasses: I also think cigarettes should be banned all together, but that is unrealistic. The Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act sounds like a great idea. Even if you sit in non-smoking sections in public places it doesn't matter because smoke floats and lingers. It gets in your hair and your clothes and reaks. However, I did recently see a commercial for a smoke free casino.
Me: To deny private property owners the right to choose for themselves whether smoking will be allowed or disallowed in their facilities is unconstitutional and actually rather fascist.
A new, even bigger dumbass steps in: Well, we don't allow private owners to spit in our food, have bowl movements in public or let bugs run around. Why? Because of health reasons. Smoking, on the hand is allowed in public and have been proven a numerous amount of time to do damage to our health expecially second hand smoking. If not allowing people to smoke in public is fascist then not allowing people to poop in a middle of a resteraunt is facist also.
I, the genius that I am, reply:
Using your "poop" as an example,
If I went to a restaurant, and found "poop" in my food or saw
someone "pooping" in the middle of the restaurant, I would never go back
and I would tell everyone I know to never go there.
The same goes for if I got violently ill after eating there for whatever reason.
If there was an outbreak of hepatitis among people who ate at the
restaurant, class action lawsuits would put the owner out of business for
the rest of his life and would deter any other owners from allowing "poop" to
be used as an ingredient in their food.
The same goes for smoking. If you don't like inhaling secondhand smoke,
you don't go to a restaurant that allows it. There is a large enough
population of anti-smokers that many restaurants already have voluntarily
banned smoking from their restaurants.
It is self-regulating; the government has no place in the restaurant business.
"Publicly owned" property would be a different matter however.
A third dumbass:
I would like to see a Nevada where I can go to the store and not get hit in the face with a cloud of smoke. But I know that is not very likely, especialy stores that have gaming. For that reason I try not to patron those establishments. I work for a drug store that has gaming and the first thing I hear people say, from out of state, is 'they have smoking in a drug store, that is not very healthy'. I could not agree more with them, but our store has a contract with the gaming company and it states that if the store wants to continue to receive revenue from them then we just have to live with the smoking.
I understand that people have a right to smoke and that right should not be taken away from them. So it is up to the rest of us who do not smoke and those who do, but respect the rights of those who do not, to fight the good fight and not use those places that allow smoking.
One last thing, we live in a democracy and the voice of the people is soposed to be heard. If the majority of the people want to ban smoking altogether is that realy facism or is it the vioce of the people? And if the majority of the people want to ban smoking in public places but the minority is allowed to continue, is that not an unfair ruling?
Somebody else, who is somehow almost on the same level as me:
Yes, we live in a Democracy . . . well actually a representative republic. But "majority rules" is not the code we live by. Facsism was brought up. Lets not forget that Hitler was elected into power by "majority rule." Our founders drafted a pretty amazing document called the constitution. They set up a series of checks and balances in the form of the judiciary. If the majority rule infringes on private rights, the judiciary can step in and use the power of the constiturion to right the wrong. I believe tobacco is a deadly substance. I know we will not ban it because it brings way too much revenue to local and federal tax coffers. To tell a private business that their customers cannot use a legal substance in their establishment is enfringement upon the owner's rights. We all can chose where to eat, shop, and recreate. Let's not get to the point where we demand government to make all of our decisions for us.
Most delicious.
Some dumbass, replying to some other dumbasses: I also think cigarettes should be banned all together, but that is unrealistic. The Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act sounds like a great idea. Even if you sit in non-smoking sections in public places it doesn't matter because smoke floats and lingers. It gets in your hair and your clothes and reaks. However, I did recently see a commercial for a smoke free casino.
Me: To deny private property owners the right to choose for themselves whether smoking will be allowed or disallowed in their facilities is unconstitutional and actually rather fascist.
A new, even bigger dumbass steps in: Well, we don't allow private owners to spit in our food, have bowl movements in public or let bugs run around. Why? Because of health reasons. Smoking, on the hand is allowed in public and have been proven a numerous amount of time to do damage to our health expecially second hand smoking. If not allowing people to smoke in public is fascist then not allowing people to poop in a middle of a resteraunt is facist also.
I, the genius that I am, reply:
Using your "poop" as an example,
If I went to a restaurant, and found "poop" in my food or saw
someone "pooping" in the middle of the restaurant, I would never go back
and I would tell everyone I know to never go there.
The same goes for if I got violently ill after eating there for whatever reason.
If there was an outbreak of hepatitis among people who ate at the
restaurant, class action lawsuits would put the owner out of business for
the rest of his life and would deter any other owners from allowing "poop" to
be used as an ingredient in their food.
The same goes for smoking. If you don't like inhaling secondhand smoke,
you don't go to a restaurant that allows it. There is a large enough
population of anti-smokers that many restaurants already have voluntarily
banned smoking from their restaurants.
It is self-regulating; the government has no place in the restaurant business.
"Publicly owned" property would be a different matter however.
A third dumbass:
I would like to see a Nevada where I can go to the store and not get hit in the face with a cloud of smoke. But I know that is not very likely, especialy stores that have gaming. For that reason I try not to patron those establishments. I work for a drug store that has gaming and the first thing I hear people say, from out of state, is 'they have smoking in a drug store, that is not very healthy'. I could not agree more with them, but our store has a contract with the gaming company and it states that if the store wants to continue to receive revenue from them then we just have to live with the smoking.
I understand that people have a right to smoke and that right should not be taken away from them. So it is up to the rest of us who do not smoke and those who do, but respect the rights of those who do not, to fight the good fight and not use those places that allow smoking.
One last thing, we live in a democracy and the voice of the people is soposed to be heard. If the majority of the people want to ban smoking altogether is that realy facism or is it the vioce of the people? And if the majority of the people want to ban smoking in public places but the minority is allowed to continue, is that not an unfair ruling?
Somebody else, who is somehow almost on the same level as me:
Yes, we live in a Democracy . . . well actually a representative republic. But "majority rules" is not the code we live by. Facsism was brought up. Lets not forget that Hitler was elected into power by "majority rule." Our founders drafted a pretty amazing document called the constitution. They set up a series of checks and balances in the form of the judiciary. If the majority rule infringes on private rights, the judiciary can step in and use the power of the constiturion to right the wrong. I believe tobacco is a deadly substance. I know we will not ban it because it brings way too much revenue to local and federal tax coffers. To tell a private business that their customers cannot use a legal substance in their establishment is enfringement upon the owner's rights. We all can chose where to eat, shop, and recreate. Let's not get to the point where we demand government to make all of our decisions for us.
Most delicious.